 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1".
Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and
"shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."
In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's
actually a 1, right?
And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you
consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that
happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.
Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of
analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital
signals, you wouldn't *need* to.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly no
t
> worth paying £20,000 for.
It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just be
ing
dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. What the
heck are you paying £20,000 for?
>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
> ...there's a difference between them?
Stick with analog.
> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
> artifacts.
True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/6/2010 10:45 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
>> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
>> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
>> worth paying £20,000 for.
>
> 20k£? Where do you shop? :O
>
Given what he describes happening with movement.. Some place where the
TV people are being robbed blind by companies selling them bad
compression, and the people delivering it the same. Or.. He has
satellite. lol That is the thing they "don't" tell you with the whole,
"satellites have more bandwidth" BS. First, its basically a lie. I get
the same number of channels + high speed digital internet over my cable,
so.. the idea there isn't bandwidth is just silly. So.. How do they get
that extra "bandwidth" they claim? Simple... they compress the hell out
of the signal, so much so that your HD signals look as bad as my
**better** standard signals look "good". In other words - make up the
space lost by sending you the signal, by sending you 10% less data in
the signal, or what ever it is.
Mind, this is likely no the case with the re-broadcasts, since such
signals still need to be used to transmit to the cable people, but those
are **not** what you get from Direct TV, or the like. You are getting
their version of DSL, while the signal to the cable company is more
like.. T1. The only way to end up with "less" bandwidth is if the cable
company decides to screw you too, with crappy compression, to give
themselves more bandwidth than they need (which I don't doubt happens).
So, yeah.. What your picture looks like is going to vary, even if there
isn't anything wrong with the TV at all. Its all dependent on if the
people sending you the signal figure they can get by with it, or not.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use analog
components.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>
> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use
> analog components.
Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.
Oh, wait a sec...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
Nothing. My point is, anything that says "HD" on it - whether it's a TV
or a coffee mat - instantly becomes drastically more expensive than the
"non-HD" version. Which seems silly, given the minimal difference in
quality.
It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything
incompatible so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to
something really high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?
Then again, I suppose you usually sit sort of 12 feet away or something...
>>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
>> ...there's a difference between them?
>
> Stick with analog.
Not an opion, sadly.
>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
>> artifacts.
>
> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
...OK...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
>>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>>
>> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use
>> analog components.
>
> Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.
What part of "if you use analog components" did you miss? Have you ever
tuned a guitar?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
>>> artifacts.
>>
>> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
>
> ...OK...
... which was that no, I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw them
in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is stunning.
And the resolution is already pushing the limits of technology.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw
> them in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is
> stunning.
Oh, right. OK. Well if I can GET to the side of the room where the TV
is, maybe I'll try it. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> > It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1".
> Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and
> "shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."
> In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's
> actually a 1, right?
> And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you
> consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that
> happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.
> Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of
> analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital
> signals, you wouldn't *need* to.
I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.
I'm not talking about modulation. I'm pointing out that there's no such
thing as a digital signal, unless you start getting into quantum
cryptography or something. It doesn't matter if it's modulated or not.
There's no such thing as a digital signal. There's only a signal that you
choose to interpret in a digital way. But that's a feature of
interpretation, not a feature of the signal.
For example, digital CDMA cell phones do not operate if the actual
over-the-air signal is digital. They rely on looking at the analog
properties of the radio waves to sort out the digital signals. Beyond just
the tuning bit.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the
> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables. Unless I'm missing something, that's like
> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
> ethernet connection to cat 6. In the analog realm, high quality cables
> meant a lot. In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal
> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy
> quality ethernet cable, as well. But they either work, or they don't.
Perfect analysis. You know how software makers are able to get a lot of money
from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works? Audio-video industry
is just about as horrendous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression artifacts.
Yep. In some cases, it's more pronounced than in others. Initially,
satellite HDTV was horrible in comparison to what's available now. They
simply didn't have the bandwidth to support it. Even now, I can notice it a
little bit, but for the most part, I don't see the artifacts. Artifacts are
most noticeable in dark images.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
$780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p. Other brands are cheaper.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
>> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
>> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
>> and not much else.
>
> Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> stores I've been to just show trash.
>
Agreed. The stores suck. And the difference in quality is huge. Anyone
who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
analog monitor. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.4b9311a1977651427220e2710@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than
>> the
>> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables. Unless I'm missing something, that's
>> like
>> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
>> ethernet connection to cat 6. In the analog realm, high quality cables
>> meant a lot. In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the
>> signal
>> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really
>> crappy
>> quality ethernet cable, as well. But they either work, or they don't.
>
> Perfect analysis. You know how software makers are able to get a lot of
> money
> from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works? Audio-video
> industry
> is just about as horrendous.
>
I suppose that if I spent $100 for a 3-foot cable, I'd delude myself too,
though. Admitting that I just paid 20 times more than a reasonable price
would just be too difficult for me. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"UncleHoot" <jer### [at] mutualdatacom> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> >> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> >> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> >> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> >> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> >> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> >> and not much else.
> >
> > Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> > if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> > stores I've been to just show trash.
> >
>
> Agreed. The stores suck. And the difference in quality is huge. Anyone
> who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
> analog monitor. ;-)
I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be guilty
indeed: many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs. Talk about truly
awful marketing skills...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UncleHoot wrote:
>> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
>> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
>> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
>
> $780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p. Other brands are cheaper.
Or if he wants a big picture but without a TV:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2018129/art/sanyo/plv-z700-video-projector.html
I'm pretty sure Andrew could get The Best dvb-tuner in the world for the
19k£ that's left...
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.
The player is hooked up to the LCD TV via an HDMI cable. Apparently the
TV is in 1080p mode. (Presumably that means 1080 scanlines with
progressive scan?) I've played some DVDs and some BluRay disks.
There *is* a difference. But it still seems quite small. The main place
you see it is actually in the setup menues, weirdly enough. The
texturing seems sharper. Once the film itself is playing, you don't
really see a whole lot of difference. Except sometimes in shots that are
very still, or have lots of close-up detail.
I can only guess that most of the time, large parts of the frame are out
of focus anyway, so there's no extra detail to capture except on the
foreground objects which are in sharp focus. And also, if the objects
are moving around a lot, there's so much motion blur that you don't see
any extra detail.
So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that
looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most
especially, when you first start watching it seems a little sharper, but
after 20 minutes you've forgotten all about it.) It's certainly not the
"OMG, your eyeballs will drop out of your skull in sheer amazement"
effect that everybody keeps promising.
Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
like. But I haven't done so yet.
The main thing is, I can now throw away the *useless* DVD player we've
been using! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D
BTW, here's a spot on comparison I caught from another forum.
DVD shot, upscaled to 1080p:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/4ac8c10f.png
Bluray:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/03a3bde1.png
guess for someone calling Mozart bland it's all equally blurry, but I can see
details of the dress, faces and background foliage in bluray HD glory. :)
and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default! The difference is
much more pronounced in the crisp images of modern movies like, say, Pixar
movies:
http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was
new and amazing on blu-ray.
Do the same comparison with something like Batman.
And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast,
while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
>
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was
> new and amazing on blu-ray.
>
> Do the same comparison with something like Batman.
I don't have Batman at hand, but I did provide a link to a reasonably modern
Pixar movie:
http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/
like, DVD:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dvdcar.jpg
and bluray:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bdcar.jpg
> And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast,
> while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.
artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be
> guilty
> indeed: many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs. Talk about
> truly awful marketing skills...
Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well
with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie"
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be
> > guilty
> > indeed: many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs. Talk about
> > truly awful marketing skills...
>
> Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well
> with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie"
> :)
I heard a woman next to me once arguing that the reason why the image was blurry
was precisely because it was a pirated movie. You know, those kinds where they
cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P
Yep. You can actually get disks with an entire 10-hour miniseries on one
DVD. Looks like it, too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
> media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.
Agreed. Especially since, really, people *do* notice it and complain. For
about six months stuff was over-compressed. Now people have complained and
the signal has been cleaned up a bunch, at least around here.
It's usually just the fast motion where you notice, like the background
while the camera follows the sports player. If you're not looking for it,
you almost never notice it. Altho I do remember one or two explosions on DVD
where you could see the blockiness.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
>
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film
> was new and amazing on blu-ray.
Depends on whether the blu-ray was a new digital copy of the old film,
or just the ancient VHS copy converted to a new format. That old
Kodachrome ASA 40 Super 8 film has a lot more information than even a
1080 TV can display, most of it in contrast.
That all assumes that one can find the film stock for old movies, anymore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/07/10 13:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.
> So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that
> looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most
What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
difference.
> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
> like. But I haven't done so yet.
That should show it.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should be as
> good as any other,
Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case any
additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable next to
the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on a motor,
etc) and then it will stop working. I have never seen anything like this
though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked flawlessy at 1080p
while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind my computer and TV.
> the higher bandwidth might be necesary. But for now, what good is it?
It's always good to have a little in reserve, as explained above, but really
I suspect the ultra cheap ones have plenty enough in reserve. The shops
that you go to of course are going to stock the expensive ones, as they
would prefer to make $20 profit on an $80 cable than $2 on an $8 one.
Magazine reviews are also biased because the makers of the $100 cables send
them loads for free, if the magazine writes bad reviews about them being a
waste of money they likely will not get any more.
> In fact, I'm still not convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense
> whatsoever. With CRT's, it made a LOT of difference, because it
> substantially reduced flicker. LCD doesn't have flicker. It has response
> times, and lowering the response times does make a difference. I'm not
> convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any different from a 5ms 120Hz
> screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.
When your eye tracks a moving object on an LCD you see blur for two reasons.
One is the response time of the pixel, the other is the fact that the LCD is
finite resolution and the frames are displayed continuously (and not as
impulses like a CRT). Even with a response time of 0ms you will still see
image blur.
Recently the LC technology has improved giving faster switching times. This
has two impacts, it means the 2nd type of blur I mentioned above becomes
more apparent, and that it's possible to refresh at higher than 60 Hz.
Given the very fast response time, the easiest easiest way to reduce blur is
to simply show a totally black frame between each real frame. In theory you
could make an LCD perform like a CRT by only showing the frame for the first
5-10% of the frame, then showing black for the rest of it. Recently with
LED backlights it is becoming very easy to do this sort of thing (LEDs don't
care if they are at 100% brightness 100% of the time, or 1000% brightness
for 10% of the time).
As already mentioned, it makes an even better effect if the TV can
intelligently calculate some "inbetween" frames to display. This has the
disadvantage of being costly to implement and obviously not being able to
predict everything perfectly. But mostly the result is visually superior to
simple black frame insertion.
BTW I would suggest comparing fast scrolling text (eg end credits of a TV
show) on a normal TV and a 120 / 240 Hz version - the difference is obvious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes. OTOH the digital signal fails fully when it fails, with analog
> signal you're still able to get the information from the news with even
> very bad signal (while you don't want to see a movie with such signal).
I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts to
fail, what the analogue picture would look like? Where my mum lives they
still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and the
digital at 20 kW...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything incompatible
> so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to something really
> high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?
If you can't tell the difference between SD and HD (because your TV is too
small and/or you're too far away from it) then you *certainly* are not going
to notice any difference with an even higher resolution.
Currently I doubt many people would want a large enough TV, or sit close
enough to it, to warrant much higher than 1920x1080.
What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame rate,
120 Hz would do nicely (I have very fond memories of playing some games at
120 Hz on my old CRT, the smoothness was awesome).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
> difference.
Demons & Angels. Came in the box with the player.
I also started watching the last Harry Potter film.
>> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
>> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
>> like. But I haven't done so yet.
>
> That should show it.
I've watched at least half the film in HD. Haven't tried it in SD yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame
> rate.
Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame
rate that yields a believable illusion of motion?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame
>> rate.
>
> Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame rate
> that yields a believable illusion of motion?
Yup, IIRC the maximum (ie above that you don't really notice any difference)
is somewhere around 100 Hz.
I wonder how long before LCD makers start marketing their high framerate TV
technology in computer monitors? The hard core gamers should like it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:31:50 -0000, UncleHoot
<jer### [at] mutualdatacom> did spake thusly:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>>> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
>>> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
>>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
>>> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in
>>> constrast,
>>> and not much else.
>>
>> Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
>> if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
>> stores I've been to just show trash.
>
> Agreed. The stores suck. And the difference in quality is huge.
> Anyone who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480
> interlaced analog monitor. ;-)
Unless it's a dedicated stand I've yet to see an HD television receive an
HD signal in-store. They're either using a splitter through the standard
aerial port or composite cables, or they're broadcasting the over-the-air
Freeview channels which are all SD.
Just to go off-topic here-in lies another joyous thing in the UK - 'We're
switching off the analogue broadcasts you'll need a digital receiver'. So
off everyone goes to buy either a new television or set-top box. Now it's
- 'We're cutting some of the Freeview channels down to be able to
broadcast HD' Fair enough - 'We'll be using mpeg4 rather than mpeg2 so
pretty much none of the set-top boxes/digital televisions you've bought
will work with it; go and buy a new one'.
Okay back on-topic, the settings on the television also make a difference.
On mine I had to turn the sharpening off with SD broadcasts; terrible
fringing.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Just to go off-topic here-in lies another joyous thing in the UK - 'We're
> switching off the analogue broadcasts you'll need a digital receiver'. So
> off everyone goes to buy either a new television or set-top box. Now it's
> - 'We're cutting some of the Freeview channels down to be able to
> broadcast HD' Fair enough - 'We'll be using mpeg4 rather than mpeg2 so
> pretty much none of the set-top boxes/digital televisions you've bought
> will work with it; go and buy a new one'.
Wait... what? That's news! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:05:13 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
>> difference.
>
> Demons & Angels. Came in the box with the player.
>
> I also started watching the last Harry Potter film.
>
>>> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
>>> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
>>> like. But I haven't done so yet.
>> That should show it.
>
> I've watched at least half the film in HD. Haven't tried it in SD yet.
I've watched both the Harry Potter and Batman Begins in both DVD and HD.
In fact I slotted in BB DVD into my PS3 while running BB Blu-ray on my
dedicated player. Skipped through to Bruce Wayne picking the flower,
paused it and jumped between inputs. You could tell easily which was
which. Likewise in some of the darker sections, much less noise on the
Blu-ray version.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:52:29 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
'Digital television is great it will allow many more channels to be
broadcast within the same frequency range' = money to be split between
four channels rather than just the one = the government scrabbling to get
more broadcasters to fill all these channels = really cheap television.
Oo four Shopping Channels, how did I ever cope before "Russia Today", and
where would I lose money if not for "SuperCasino" or "The Big Deal"?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels, I
fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would even
exist. The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude more
channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of progamming
available to drop massively.
Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99% of
channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average
quality level.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts
> to fail, what the analogue picture would look like? Where my mum lives
> they still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and
> the digital at 20 kW...
>
Well yes, there still might be more power on the analog signal. What I
ment is that while digital signal goes either off or soundless blocks,
analog signal just starts having noice and even to very poor S/N -ratio
you still can know what's going on in the transmission (if you really
want to).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott wrote:
>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>>
>> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
>> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
>
> If we were still limited by analogue bandwidth to only 4 or 5 channels,
> I fail to see how 99% of the rubbish channels that there are now would
> even exist. The fact that digital allowed a couple orders of magnitude
> more channels to be available IMO caused the average quality of
> progamming available to drop massively.
>
> Do what I do, simply program in the best channels, ignore the other 99%
> of channels, and suddenly you can be back to almost a reasonable average
> quality level.
>
>
Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
**did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
with specialized HD versions.
Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
channels 15 years back.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
> with specialized HD versions.
>
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
> channels 15 years back.
Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 1:35 AM, scott wrote:
>> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should
>> be as good as any other,
>
> Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case
> any additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable
> next to the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on
> a motor, etc) and then it will stop working. I have never seen anything
> like this though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked
> flawlessy at 1080p while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind
> my computer and TV.
>
Yeah. Bigger concern if house wiring and splitters. Lot of idiots are
still using older 800hz splitters, when digital requires *at minimum*
1000hz, or 2500hz, if you want to have the best range (though that is
overkill, in "most" cases), and 90% of the houses are wired with coax
wiring that is about half the width of the stuff now recommended. By the
estimate of my cable company people, the wiring we have in the house,
just by itself, is cutting the signal by probably 10%. Add in a 30% drop
for two splitters, to get to my computer, while also running the TV off
of it, and I am still OK. Add in another, or some moron slapping in a
3-4 way, which drops it more like 25%, or worse, or a cable that's too
short, causing signal deflections, and you lose over half of your
signal, and even your digital cable box will fail to work, never mind
your modem.
It can make a difference, depending on local noise, length, if you do
something dumb, like making short loops in your wire, etc., or somewhat
thinner wires. It all can add up, but, its still not worth the insane
cost of the high end cables, when talking about things like HDMI (not
unless you have some serious need for that quality).
Mind.. This is also probably like the difference between buying
something that has a clear, "This much variance exists in the part",
vs., "You will probably be OK, but we are not even bothering to print
variances, signal loss per length, or other data on this cable, because
we just buy cheap wire to make it, don't bother checking too careful,
and for all we know it came from anything from a telephone box to a toy
car. Oh, and we don't guarantee that any of it is well soldiered, and
properly grounded either." The ones "with" that information stamped on
them tend to cost 3 times as much. **But**, they also fail 90% less
often, and cause less problems (you don't want to know how many cheap
splitters I have gone through, before they tore all of them out and
replaced them with ones that "do" have those specs clearly printed on
them). Cables.. are likely much the same. You get what they are willing
to charge you to guarantee.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2010 1:44 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
>> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
>> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
>> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
>> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
>> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck,
>> you can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all
>> only had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5%
>> of them with specialized HD versions.
>>
>> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
>> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
>> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
>> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick
>> the ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it,
>> and b) you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get
>> 10 channels 15 years back.
>
> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>
The US. Why?
But, I am serious. Yes, you have had some added, like the Food Network,
but 90% of the rest of the crap is new channels, tacked on by existing
broadcasters, as part of their big name channels. Some places they just
end up with goofy letter combos, which make it hard to figure out which
mega-corp, who has been making crap shows since the 70s sitcom era, they
belong to. They certainly are not "new stations", per say, just more of
them, from the same idiots.
This is one of the reasons they "bundle" them. You might be willing to,
say.. pay for the one where House airs, but not the 6 other ones from
the same company, which show endless garbage, which you have neither the
time, inclination, or remaining brain cells, to watch. Mostly the time
though, since you would have to run 150 TVs at the same time to "watch"
all the shit they think you want. In reality, you are probably paying
for what could be condensed into *maybe* two channels, if they a) spread
it out a bit, so things where not always on at the same time, allowed
yourself on channel to record, and spent the same few hours each day
actually watching shows. I.e., 800 hours of programming, per day, when
you maybe watch 2-3? Hell. Nuke about 50% of that, including all the
sports channels, and give me, assuming it still exists, something like
the Playboy Channel, or something, if you actually want me to watch
something. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>
> The US. Why?
I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.
But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff
that you used to have to pay for.
(I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels
have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff
again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in
1970 or so...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels **did**
> exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an illegal
> satellite unit, to watch them.
Maybe in the US. In the UK we only got a satellite service around 1990, and
cable TV much later which still is not popular at all. The majority of
people used terrestrial receivers to get the 4 available channels via
analogue (they added a 5th, but bandwidth problems meant a lot of people
couldn't get it properly), and recently ~50 channels via digital.
In the UK, the only channels now that existed before digital TV are the ones
that came over from Sky, like Sky News, Sky Sports News and CNN and the
imported Viva channel (can't see anymore on the listings that might have
existed earlier). All the rest (the majority) were either added as
additions to the "big 4" analogue channels or created from scratch after
digital TV came.
The channel list is here:
http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:42:10 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:
> On 3/8/2010 9:18 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
<snip snip>
> Hate to tell you, but with some exceptions, most of those channels
> **did** exists, you just had to be bloody stinking rich, or have an
> illegal satellite unit, to watch them. Most of the stuff added *since*
> have been duplicates. I.e., 4 different ESPN ones, instead of 1, 3-4
> different ones for every movie broadcaster, instead of just 1 (or 2 in
> some cases), Disney used to have 1, now its 3, at least, etc. Heck, you
> can find ABC, CBS, NBS, etc. on 3-4 channels now, where they all only
> had *one* previously. Then.. with digital you now have about 5% of them
> with specialized HD versions.
>
> Nope. What is on the cable line up today is pretty much what was there
> 10-15 years ago, if you where in a large city, with the exception of
> maybe less than a half dozen added since. The only major difference is
> that now you a) have them all bundled as packages, so you can't pick the
> ones you want, instead of buying the whole mess of crap with it, and b)
> you can get more of them, in places you would be lucky to get 10
> channels 15 years back.
As Orphi and Scott infer and state the majority of people in this country
received the free broadcasts only. Those I know who did have satellite got
those four/five channels plus others not affiliated with those
broadcasters and complained about how crap it was.
Now those same broadcasters are trying to take a lower budget (due to the
current economic situation) and pad it out amongst more channels. The BBC
used to just have BBC1 and BBC2 plus the radio stations, now it's also got
BBC3, BBC4, CBeebies, CBBC, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, and the shifting
multi-channel Red Button. ITV runs to five channels, Channel 4 has five,
and "Five" has three; and that's not counting regional variations.
Yes some of these were coming into force during the satellite and cable
pick-up times; but it was the digital switchover that really started to
spread things thinly for the UK.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
